Community awareness of, use of and attitudes towards HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men in Vancouver, Canada: preparing health promotion for a publicly funded PrEP program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background HIV rates are persistently disproportionate among men who have sex with men (MSM). Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective HIV prevention method, now publicly funded in British Columbia. This study assessed PrEP-related attitudes, sexual behaviour and self-reported use before public funding. METHODS: Adult MSM were recruited from January to June 2017 through a local community-based organisation's PrEP campaign website (www.getpreped.ca). Participants self-completed an anonymous online questionnaire, and were stratified into three groups: (i) HIV-positive participants; (ii) HIV-negative participants not using PrEP; and (iii) HIV-negative participants using PrEP. Descriptive, bivariate and univariate regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 249 participants, 191 (77%) were HIV-negative not using PrEP, 41 (17%) were HIV-negative using PrEP and 17 (7%) were HIV-positive. Among PrEP users, 90% used PrEP daily and all reported having recommended medical follow-up care. Among HIV-negative, non-PrEP-users, 44% said they would reduce condom use if they used PrEP and 28% were uncomfortable asking their doctor for PrEP. Interest in PrEP among non-users was associated with higher objective risk scores (i.e. HIV Incidence Risk Index for MSM), higher self-perceived risk, greater perceived PrEP effectiveness, no prescription medications insurance, open or single relationship status (vs closed) and not always using condoms (vs always). Among HIV-positive participants, 53% agreed PrEP reduced stigma for people living with HIV. All study groups perceived a greater percentage of MSM on PrEP (10%, 15%, 18%) than in their own social networks (5%, 4%, 6%). CONCLUSIONS: PrEP health promotion must consider comprehensive PrEP education; accuracy of self-perceived HIV risk and PrEP social norms; and barriers to culturally safe primary care for MSM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".